chore(citadel): finalize package, hold submission records

Finalization per shared_ops.md. Both submitted documents re-validated:
resume and cover letter each PASS with zero warnings. Final PDFs copied
to Dennis_Thiessen_Resume.pdf and Dennis_Thiessen_Cover_Letter.pdf.

Steps 5 and 6 - submission date and cohort entry - are deliberately not
done. The user directed "apply as is" but has not confirmed the
application was actually sent, and stamping today's date on a submission
that may happen tomorrow corrupts the log that every cohort and
disposition-timing judgement is read from. Both commands are written out
in the session file, ready to run on confirmation. This is the same
discipline applied to the SBB Wienandts call: record what happened, not
what was intended.

The critique stays STALE by choice rather than being re-run: it scored
the pre-Tier-1 resume and predates the cover letter. The estimated ~91
post-edit Document Quality is flagged in both the session file and here
as an estimate that must never be quoted as a score.

The working-model question is unresolved and now travels with the
application rather than blocking it, which is the user's call and a
reasonable one now that the package exists: clarifying first only pays
off in the branch where a cold application gets a call. It must be asked
at first recruiter contact. If Zurich is 5-day onsite this is a decline
on the Bern constraint no matter how the process goes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHtzyTKBcg6BWhD5qFegtK

output/CitadelSecurities_PlatformEngineer/session_citadel_securities_platform_engineer.md

@@ -317,7 +317,9 @@ not a re-scored critique.
   No external hooks by design (`cl_reference.md`: omit an unnecessary hook); the only hook is the
   JD's own first-party language. States the R1 gap plainly rather than hiding it. PP-1 labelled
   personal with an explicit "I make no claims for its results".
-- Critique: **STALE** (scored 86/100 on 2026-08-26, before Edit 1) — **Document Quality 86/100**, Evidence Fit 71, Channel Weak.
+- Critique: **STALE by design** — scored 86/100 on the pre-Edit-1 resume and before the cover
+  letter existed. User elected to submit as-is rather than re-critique (2026-08-26). Estimated
+  post-edit Document Quality ~91; not re-scored, and that estimate must not be quoted as a score. — **Document Quality 86/100**, Evidence Fit 71, Channel Weak.
   No Tier 1 truth findings; validator PASS. Three Tier 1 relevance fixes (~+4), all honestly
   available: (1) R2's own vocabulary — ingestion/transformation/storage/lifecycle — is absent
   despite R2 being the single Direct core responsibility; (2) "distributed systems" never appears
@@ -325,7 +327,31 @@ not a re-scored critique.
   Direct preferred hit but never written. File: `critique_citadel_securities_platform_engineer.md`
 - **STILL BLOCKED on the working-model question** — resume built at user direction with that
   question open. If Zurich is 5-day onsite, this package does not get submitted.
-- Next: `/critique output/CitadelSecurities_PlatformEngineer/session_citadel_securities_platform_engineer.md`
+## Finalization (2026-08-26)
+
+Per `shared_ops.md` → Finalization:
+
+1. ✅ Session, resume `.tex`/`.pdf`, critique all present
+2. ✅ Cover letter `.tex`/`.pdf` present (session decision YES)
+3. ✅ Canonical validator re-run on **both** submitted documents → **PASS, 0 warnings each**
+4. ✅ Final PDFs copied to `Dennis_Thiessen_Resume.pdf` and `Dennis_Thiessen_Cover_Letter.pdf`
+5. ⏸ **Submission date NOT yet recorded** — user directed "apply as is" but has not confirmed the
+   application was actually sent. Do not stamp a date that has not happened.
+6. ⏸ **Cohort entry NOT yet added** — same reason. Would be Adjacent 2/2.
+
+**On confirmation of submission, run both:**
+
+```
+./job_scout/.venv/Scripts/python.exe resume_builder/helpers/cohort_tracker.py add   --company "Citadel Securities" --role "Platform Engineer, Research Platform Engineering (Zurich)"   --date <YYYY-MM-DD> --fit-class adjacent --evidence-fit 71 --channel weak   --hard-gate pass --outcome applied
+
+./job_scout/.venv/Scripts/python.exe job_scout/scout.py --decide   "https://www.citadelsecurities.com/careers/details/platform-engineer/" applied "<note>"
+```
+
+**Carry-forward risk — unchanged by submission.** The Zurich working model is still unknown and the
+evidence points to 5-day onsite. **Ask it in the first recruiter contact.** If it is 5 days, this is
+a decline on the Bern constraint regardless of how the process goes.
+
+- Next: ask the working-model question at first contact; record submission when sent
 - Resume: PENDING
 - Cover Letter: PENDING (decision YES)
 - Critique: PENDING